For love of country

I

have spent the last couple of weeks grappling with the concept of patriotism. What does it mean to be patriotic? Can someone be patriotic and still criticize their country? Patriotism is the “love for or devotion to one’s country,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The example they use in illustration is: “Although poles apart ideologically, they are both unashamed of their patriotism – Christopher Hemphill.”

Patriotism is about love and devotion to one’s country. It is not about liking what is going on. Consider you can love a person but dislike their actions. This is a concept we all know and understand. Any parent will tell you they have an unconditional love for their children but sometimes they don’t like what they are doing.

In the same way, people can disagree ideologically and not like what is going on but still love their country.

Recognition of this simple fact seems to be missing from the political discourse south of the border and even sometimes in Canada: people might disagree about how a country should be run but still love the country with equal fervor.

Over the years, I have criticized both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. I might disagree with their approach to a situation or the bills they propose or how they spend the public purse but I would never question their patriotism. They both work hard for this country they, and I, love.

Similarly, I might disagree with decisions by Gordon Campbell, Christy Clark, or John Horgan and yet I would never question their sense of patriotism and devotion to the province of British Columbia and Canada as a whole. The hours they put in as premier are prodigious. They care about our country and are devoted to it.

The same can be said for any number of institutions, political and otherwise. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me and I certainly don’t agree with everyone but I never would question someone’s patriotic sensibilities. People can disagree without name calling or threats of violence.

Which brings us to our country as a whole.

For the most part, Canadians are tolerant. We understand others.

We have empathy. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even though we don’t live under the American constitution. We also believe all humans are created equal.

We believe in free speech up to the point where it infringes on another’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is, you can attack an idea but not a person. For example, you can question whether climate change is happening but not attack the people who say it is or it isn’t. It is hard sometimes but it is where the line gets drawn.

Unfortunately, sometimes we walk over the line and start to attack the people speaking instead of the ideas they profess. This appears to be the case south of the border.

Sunday night, for reasons yet unknown as I write this, a lonewolf gunman named Steve Paddock opened fire on a crowded concert killing 58 people and injuring 515 others. Although authorities state they have no apparent motives, ISIS claims he was acting on their behalf. It may well be the case but they offer no proof he was working them.

Paddock was 64 years old and an accountant. Not the typical sort of person one would associate with a terrorist group. What could possibly have turned him into the worst mass murderer in modern U.S. history?

Perhaps more to the point, the news coverage keeps pointing out this is the “worst mass murder” in recent history. The fact there is a scale for this sort of thing – that it can be the “worst” instead of the “only” – says a lot about violence and civil discord.

After all, one mass murder is more than enough. At least it should be.

Set this in the context of a United States where football players are being chastised by the President as “unpatriotic” because they have chosen to express themselves. Saying there is something wrong with a country in which racial equality doesn’t exist is not “unpatriotic.” Saying the problem doesn’t exist is.

In the land of the free and the home of the brave with its equality for all, the president doesn’t believe people should speak out unless it is his message. Some resort to violence which will likely lead to more condemnation and hate against those deemed “unpatriotic.” But the violence is a consequence of not understanding patriotism.

If we love our country then we need to speak out against injustice, discrimination and hate. We need to speak up for our ideals.

We must be willing to talk with each other and respectfully disagree. We recognize violence is never the solution.